I'm having a semantics conflict.
Is “sustainability” going down the same path as “green” and “eco-friendly?”
On the one hand, cultural buzzwords come and go. They start as enlightened concepts, become overused, then tedious, then meaningless. If product marketing gets ahold of them, they become twisted and their meanings gutted. Even George Zens, publisher of the Sustainability Times in the Madison area, brought this up recently in an article under his Sustainability 101. Regarding sustainability:
Is “sustainability” going down the same path as “green” and “eco-friendly?”
On the one hand, cultural buzzwords come and go. They start as enlightened concepts, become overused, then tedious, then meaningless. If product marketing gets ahold of them, they become twisted and their meanings gutted. Even George Zens, publisher of the Sustainability Times in the Madison area, brought this up recently in an article under his Sustainability 101. Regarding sustainability:
“...there is a real danger that its significance is in the process of being diluted to the point where it is nothing more than an empty shell...”
Technically, sustainability is defined by phrases like: to hold up, to endure, to keep it going, to keep from giving way, to bear up from below. To be sure, it is a most positive sentiment of strength. But I am not sure it's the best definition for the future dynamics of life on Earth.
A level of maintained stability is not possible for world cultures in the coming decades. This is especially so for our country and our “developed” buddies. You know the culprits: population overshoot, peak oil, climate changes, economic crises, political conflicts over resources, etc. Collectively, there is no rational way we can overcome these global elephants in the room without simplifying and living with much less.
So, then, at which level do we strive to sustain? Is it the business-as-usual level per our present year? Do we, then, have the option to reset the stability dial backward during 2020, if necessary? When the cultural lifestyle levels of 2020 cannot be maintained, do we recalibrate? Stepping down the rungs of a cultural contraction ladder is not sustainability. Sustainability implies staying at the same rung from...well, now. Today. And, that can’t happen. Can one recalibrate sustainability?
[This term will really, really, really be the best one!]
As Americans acculturate to the requirements of less carbon emissions, less oil and tighter community dependence they will need a positive sense of retooling as the life standards change. We can’t dig in our heels and refuse to relinquish. We may not be able to sustain, but we will be able to adjust, rebound, and recover: Resiliency.
The resilience component does not imply that we don’t work hard nor work together for the best and fairest of living situations. It is certainly not a weakness. It does imply a feel of flow, a buoyancy. It is meeting the stability level of the moment in a fluid manner. Riding the surface of events, not simply “treading water.” It is a positive preparedness; a fishing bobber.
Resiliency in our lives gives us the permission to adjust to realities and to work with others to do the same. The Transition Culture movement, begun in the UK, is a leading citizen-based proponent of resiliency. It focuses on one’s immediate community, the lessening of transportation needs, use of local food, and reskilling. It underscores positive and flexible behavior habits of change: Resiliency.
